Campus recruitments have in recent times come to be seen as the way to go. Easy for employers to find potential recruits of their choice, easy for students to find employment even before they graduate, and easy for college to tom-tom the quality of the education they impart, they have been a win-win for all concerned. But has the time come for a rethink—and not just over the penchant for the IIMs to announce the names and salaries of the top rankers?

Over 1,000 students, and some faculty of the seven Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), have raised a small banner of revolt against campus recruitments by American companies like Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, and Dow Chemicals. They say these companies have “nothing to do with the IIT”. And they want the past record of companies in business ethics, environmental issues and human rights to be scrutinised before being allowed into any IIT campus.

Questions: Are the students and faculty playing politics at the behest of the Left by targetting American companies which are playing a role in the war? If these companies have nothing to do with IIT, should IITians be joining the civil services or joining other companies which have nothing to do with technology? Should students have the freedom to join companies they please, or should colleges draw a line on who can recruit or who can’t?

And the big one: should only Indian companies be allowed to recruit from the IITs and IIMs whose students benefit so enormously from the subsidies of the Indian government?

Bullshit!
Alok hits it on the nail when he says
“If the human rights and environmental grounds business is used to bar companies, most Indian companies would be barred, as also any sort of employment with the Indian Government.”
It is this pseudo-patriotism and the likes that kill a nation’s progress.

From press reports it looks like a section of IIT-Madras sounded the bugle against Dow (which has recently established a design R & D centre at Chennai). IIT-M itself was established in the fifties, just about a decade after the end of World War II, with the collaboration of (West) Germany. Finananical, technical, academic help generously flowed from (W) Germany. Yet there has been never any objection given the events associated with WW II.

IIT-B was set up with collaboration from USSR (notorious for Stalinist gulags) and IIT-Kanpur was one the best funded IITs, particularly during the sixties, associated with the Yankees. So, given the reasoning of the anti-recruitment protestors, can one say basically all the IITs are tainted, one way or the other?!

IIT Madras has already had a discussion on this just last week where Prof. Milind Brahme and his chelas made roaring sounds. He came with poeple who were not at all related to any IIT and niether the chemical world. They were all local left-ideologists. This professor who is making so much of noise against those companies is also not related to the core field. He is a teacher in Humanities department and has no other job than to construct good network of communism in IITM.

This is the fate of freedom fighters in India Congress, Communists, RJD, DMK and NCP are made Bagath singh terrorist. Where as all these parties supported terrorist Afzal guru who masterminded attack on parliment. But now start calling allour freedom fighters aas terrorists. What a shame.

He was revered by the youth, loathed by British Raj and opposed by none other than the greatest freedom fighter Mahatma Gandhi. Like his fellow revolutionaries, idealistic and visionary, he dreamt of freeing his motherland from the clutches of the British rule. And at the young age of 23, Bhagat Singh laid down his life for his countrymen, setting an example of putting one’s self before one’s nation.

Several decades have passed since then. The martyr’s name has once again made headlines. However, this time it is for different reasons. A debate has been triggered by the Union Public Service Commission’s reference to the brave freedom fighter as “a revolutionary terrorist”, in its general studies paper of UPSC’s civil services exams recently.

It rarely happens that the struggle for country’s Independence is being talked about by the masses and the contribution of Bhagat Singh doesn’t feature in it. Ironically, history text books at the school or college level for decades tell a different story altogether. While historians chose to ignore the revolutionary efforts of the youth icon in the freedom struggle, Bhagat Singh’s supporters believe that their hero has never got his due over all these years, thanks to the iconic names of great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, which completely dominated history lessons.

When Timesofindia.com ran a story on how the UPSC entrance exam termed Bhagat Singh as a ‘revolutionary terrorist’, Netizens overwhelmingly raised strict objections to the reference. Most of them call it an act of blasphemy and an insult to the great freedom fighter’s ‘unmatched’ contribution in the freedom struggle and nationalist movement.

Prateek Singh, Delhi, says, “This is an insult to some of greatest freedom strugglers. How can Bhagat Singh be equated to Osama Bin Laden? It is ironic that even after sixty odd years of our Independence, we have not been able to judge the role of our revolutionaries and give them proper respect. And regarding terrorism, the best explanation of means used by Bhagat Singh can be found in his statements (during his trial) and his letters. It would be highly appropriate if those letters and statements are taken into account while assessing the role of our revolutionaries.”

Expressing dismay over the issue, Prabha from Dubai, says, “Those personnel involved and collaborated in bringing out such humiliating words as “revolutionary terrorist” for Shaheed Bhagat Singh should be punished as traitors of our nation.”

Voicing his opinion all the way from Washington, Jayantsays,”Terrorism in all forms endorses killing of innocents bystanders. It cannot be justified for any cause. If Bhagat Singh can be called a revolutionary terrorist, then Gandhi should be called revolutionary terrorist as well since he was responsible for millions of death during Partition. Bhagat Singh never killed any innocent people for India’s Independence. There is no place for any kind of terrorism in today’s world. Those who support the term ‘revolutionary terrorism’ may be interested to see today’s actual terrorists (including Naxals) getting a legal status.”

In 1928, Bhagat Singh and his comrades shot Lahore Deputy Police Superintendent J P Saunders (who was mistaken for Police Chief Scott), to avenge the lathi-charge on Lala Lajpat Rai which led to his death. The next year, they hurled a harmless bomb in the National Assembly and threw pamphlets. However, they made it clear in the court later that their only intention was ‘to make the deaf hear’. Many Netizens feel that Bhagat Singh never wanted to unleash bloodshed. Rather, he was using such modes to make his countrymen aware of the existing scenario and the suffering of their brethren.

There are many who admit that Bhagat Singh’s ways were not peaceful in nature but he certainly could not be referred to as a terrorist, a term which has now become synonymous with the likes of ULFA, LTTE, Al-Qaida, Lashkar-e-Toiba and Hizbul Mujaheedin and many other outfits responsible for killing several innocent people all over the world, in the name of freedom struggle.

Bhagat Singh and his brave comrades displayed remarkable grit, determination and patriotism and were guided by the sole intention of securing freedom for the motherland. They never shied away from owning the responsibilities for their acts. Should those heroes be branded as “terrorists”, who kissed the gallows with smiles on their vibrant faces, without showing any traces of fear and died with only one slogan Inquilab Zindabad on their lips?

I am surprised and shocked at the apathy of the educated lot…What are you guys trying to support anyways? Dow chemicals a company that says they are ready to pay a paltry sum to the victims who are still reeling for their mistake, which they refuse to own. This is pseudo-patriotism? Forget patriotism…this is humanism…So anyone who stands against the might of ruthless multi-national who doesn’t believe in any value other than greed is a leftist, is it? These guys have killed people and they still walk guilt free…What kind of human race are you trying to defend? Is money the only language the educated lot understand today?

And talking in your languages. Here is a company which has refused to own up responsibility for its mistakes, what kind of treatment can expect to an employee who meets with an accident because of company’s fault?

I don’t know if i can resist temptation of big money( thankfully i am still a student!) but i just salute the chaps who have it in them to refuse to join the likes of dow chemicals.

Someone was talking of Indian companies being unethical, may be they are…but how many lives have they claimed, how many cities have they destroyed and how many generations have been affected?

If specific students have personal or ideological issues they can do as they please. Why demand a ban on recruitments? Also deciding on the suitability of a company is decided when the clearances for that company to do business in the country is given by the government. As long as there is no objection there, the students should not dictate their own policies.

IIT-M authorities should identify the ring leaders and send them home. WTF is going on? Ban the faculty and the students who are becoming unreasonable and ‘political’ in their roles. These dudes are supposed to teach and study at IIT. Something funny is going on: I suspect China is quietly behind this project–the CPM lackeys are carrying out its orders!

What is the deal with perennial government subsidized education? The universities have to be financially self-sustaining and stop depending on the government for most of the funds. This may mean raising it through industry relationships or collecting non-subsidized fees from a section of students. Or *earning* their funds by competing for government grants through the quality and impact of their research. That is how it works elsewhere, for example in the US the competition for government funding is brutal and government (and other) funding goes to the departments which demonstrate promising research. The social impact of the work and its usefulness to the nation is an important criterion taken into account while disbursing the funds.

What is the point of paying for something and then seeing only some side-effects as the reward? The return should be tangible and measurable. Money which can be better spent on primary education is spent to produce engineers and managers who may not even contribute to the contribute after they finish etc.

While the students (and staff) are free to do as they please, if they expect government subsidized education they have to be aware that they will be subject to politics. Otherwise let them leave to study abroad as soon as they finish their 12th standard and see if they can pay for their fees or find funding for their bachelors courses, whatever their academic credentials may be.

KA is an issue at all? Big deal. If some clowns and crackpots at the IITs don’t let companies to visit campus, what do they think they are really trying to achieve? A university is at liberty to decide who can make use of its placement services and who can’t. Students as members of the institution too have a say in the decision. What’s so great about this? If Dow or Halliburton can’t recruit on campus, they can set up a tent on the streets outside or rent a suite at the hotels downtown and invite students to appear there for an itnerview. These clowns and crackpots won’t achieve a thing! What a luagh!

But it is part of their job to decide who gets to come to campus recruitment. It’s their (autonomous) college and their campus! Agreed, it would be feasible to let the companies come and then boycott them – but why go to that trouble?

I don’t know which hand is behind the whole thing, but if a thousand students are aware of and willing to protest what they perceive as ‘wrong’ done to someone else – more power to them I say!

These fine folks should consider putting their brains in deep storage and curling up in a place where the sun doesn’t shine. Future generations can then try and figure out how these people skipped some evolutionary steps.

I know atleast a couple of ‘pre-eminent’ professors IITM humanities dept who are extremely pally with the likes of Ye’chury’..Most of the guys coming in there are often manufactured by coaching institutes like Ramaiah of hyderabad and hardly have any personalities and independent thoughts of their own( of course there are numerous very honourable exceptions). They are only used to solving math and physics problems using DE . When they are suddenly exposed to ‘liberal’ thought of these eminent people, they readily buy it without any application of reason(which is undeveloped except for solving Diff equations).

@koppal haida: atleast these ‘products’ of rammiah thinking where they should land up or being influenced by those liberal thoughts. what are the other guys with ‘personalities’ and ‘independent thoughts’ thinking? Just go where there is dough eh?

@koppal: agree to some extent…i have a problem understanding why ‘liberal thoughts’ are without reason? I add that i am not a huge fan of left politics or policies… but i guess they aren’t getting the respect they deserve…

Dow Chemicals .. understandable; but to blame every damn company in the world which is non-Indian is ridiculous. It is integrity that should stop a person from seeking a job in Dow Chem or the likes… not the hegemony of a few Leftist brats.

Mr.ananthamurthy forgets that this is a free country. Anyone is free interview anyone!

One will not achieve anything by ‘banning’; maybe the companies as well as colleges can come to an agreement of moderation. What such an agreement will contain or achieve or regulate, I dont know.

Most types of regulations feeds corruption while achieving absolutely nothing.

My thought maybe is liberal, but democracy is liberal to a large extent, isnt it? We want people to ‘do the right thing’ but ‘forcing people to do the right thing’ (even assuming it is indeed the right thing) is in itself wrong!

There are several issues being overlooked here:
1. The demand at IITM was to put in place certain screening criteria for allowing companies to recruit on-campus, examining them on the basis of their track record – do they practice double standards, have they been caught indulging in corrupt practices, have they addressed their responsibilities – questions of this nature. Stanford has a site with webpages on each company, listing its positive and negative traits. The idea is to encourage and promote awareness among the campus community so that people are empowered to make informed decisions.
2. For the record – Dow is guilty on the counts of practising double standards, having been caught bribing (to get the Ministry of Agriculture to put three pesticides, all banned in the US, including Dursban which causes neurological disorders among children, on the Indian market), trying to pass off UC’s technology (banned in India) as its own, not accepting its unresolved liabilities in Bhopal and not addressing the social, economic and environmental issues involved. That’s without even mentioning Agent Orange from the Vietnam War, Dow’s history with napalm, asbestos or what they’ve done in the vicinity of their HQ.
3. Good governance rarely ‘happens’; civil society must aid it as best it can. If college campuses are not going to be part of the locus where society’s priorities and ethical attitudes are scrutinised, discussed, evaluated and shaped – where else? Everyone knows youth are critical in determining the future. Leaving things to the government would be all very well in a reality where surviving Bhopalis didn’t have to take out an 850km padyatra to Delhi in 2008 for a disaster that occurred in 1984.
4. There is no ‘other’ or enemy. The idea is to send out the message to Dow loud and clear – clean up your mess! That done, they’re welcome to IIT and elsewhere in the country. But it’s very obvious to anyone who’s clued in that Dow’s attempt at recruiting on-campus is about appearances and deriving legitimacy from association. It hardly takes much effort to have students lining up at the company office or at some plush hotel in town or at a roadside tent, whichever, for a Rs. 10.5 lakh p.a. take-home starting salary. What isn’t discussed above is why a government subsidised institution should reduce an MNC’s cost of recruiting students, for that matter. Let them put advertisements in the newspapers – that’s worked well enough in the past, evn without the internet.
5. Dow tried to sponsor key events at other IITs. This sponsorship was called off prior to both the INCCOM-VI and the GLS-8 at IITK and IITD respectively, thanks to the response of the administration to expressed demand. In one case the Dow money that the IIT rejected was made up from the Dean’s fund. None of the five IITs approached finally saw Dow come in for placements, and an online poll saw a majority vote against allowing Dow entry. IITs in 2007 spoke clearly – clean up your mess, then come knocking. What’s sad is that there was such little understanding even among the students across IITs.
6. Milind Brahme has spent time at JNU, and does an exceptionally fine job at IITM. This is not a ‘chela’ or some other such ridiculous notion speaking. The sad part is, rather, that so many students (of which I’m sure a couple of ‘jokers’ have typed in entries above) don’t have a clue about what ‘humanism’ means, or at least not to the extent that they comprehend a million rupees (or is it bucks, now?) a year. Ah, well – it’s a sign of the times.

And I’d leave it at that, and so could you, and then it would be a sign of the times. Someone who had a fair bit to do with our nation, I think, said something about being the change you want to see. And I feel there may be some merit in that. So, plug away! The times they are a-changin’, as the song goes. And I don’t think anybody will claim that it’s leftists who listen to Bob Dylan – some things are universal. But then again, the question is – how many roads will a man walk down…